View Single Post
Old 04 October 2002, 02:14   #23
Give up the ghost
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 27
Posts: 4,662
Originally posted by Unknown_K
Retro gaming for most people starts with the first machine they owned or played.
The funny thing is that each generation of game type from the atari 2600 to the present day interests me. I find it funny how people that liked the old systems cant stand the new ones. Done get me wrong there is alot of crap released today on the PC, but there are some excelent titles coming out also. There was also alot of crap released with the old systems but we only remember what we liked.
The demo scene like I seen in the c64 era is dead because of a few things. One is that nobody programs direct to the hardware anymore, and few have the deep knowledge of the hardware to even try it. That and todays computers can basically do anything, back in the day people could make the c64 and the amiga do something nobody thaught possible.. well the new hardware makes just about anything possible and its alot harder to impress somebody.
Good thread...a lot of good ideas here.

My first machine...I can't even remember. Pinball, probably. And Amiga was way late in my retro past. Yet it was the one that made the impact. Nothing before it or since it has become as computer soulmate, if you will. But most of the systems interest and often fascinate me. The ones that get me going the most outside the Amiga are C64, MSX, X68000 and Amstrad. Speccy, to an extent. I also enjoy the 80's/90's 8 & 16-bit consoles, I just don't get as excited over them. But my point is that it's not neccesarily going back to our first system.

As for programming to the hardware, it seems to me that the only thing hardware-wise on the PC that's any different from the old days is the faster processor (needed to deal with the bloatware) and external cards. Not much to compare with the custom co-processors offered by the old school machines, namely the Amiga. Everybody these days programs in high-level or object-oriented languages and everything relies on the system. And that system is simply poor, buggy and limited for programmers with so many undocumented API's. A programmer's hands are tied, both by design and by choice. The attitude is nowhere to be found. Creativity is a long lost concept.

And that's the fault of your analogy. Today's computers can't basically do anything. They have a lot of horsepower and a lot of apps - most of which claim they can do this and that in their blurbs, but in actual usage, fall way short. Sound packages swear they can deliver this effect and that effect, but they are buggy and the end product is nothing like described. Same thing with gfx plug-ins in image software. If you believe all the press releases, then yes, modern PC's can do almost anything. I still find graphic-intensive software on the PC to be jerky (except maybe on the very fastest machines of today and even then, I doubt it). Yet an A500 could display stunning demos from a floppy on a 1-meg machine. No bloat, no system overhead doing God-knows-what - just an advanced machine doing what it was created to do: multimedia. The PC cannot make this claim.

I don't believe new PC hardware makes most anything possible, just some things. Stability and compatibility would impress me.
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Page generated in 0.03990 seconds with 10 queries